State court officials urge more ongoing funding to maintain Michigan’s unified case-management system

State court officials told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Corrections and Judiciary that continued funding is essential to operate and secure Michigan’s unified statewide case management system and related court services.

Tom Boyd, state court administrator, said the governor’s executive recommendation includes a little over $2,000,000 in ongoing funding but the judiciary projects substantially higher needs. “We are grateful for the $2,000,000 in ongoing funding in the executive recommendation, but we still are $20,000,000 short of the total we will need,” Boyd said, describing staff, cloud-hosting, disaster recovery and security monitoring as major drivers of the shortfall.

The request follows a prior, one-time legislative and gubernatorial investment of $150,000,000 to build and expand the unified system. Boyd said that appropriation funded construction of the system but did not cover the recurring costs of operating a larger, statewide platform. “Data must drive decision making,” Trevor Van Dyke, deputy general counsel for the Michigan Supreme Court, said during the presentation, explaining the policy rationale for sustained investment.

Why it matters: the unified case management system, together with a new data-and-analytics platform built with private partners, underpins real-time reporting, case tracking and a variety of public-access tools. Boyd told the panel that 10 additional courts migrated to the unified system during the past year, bringing roughly 86% of trial courts and about 85% of the trial-court case load onto the statewide system.

Specific asks and fiscal context: Boyd outlined four items the judiciary would like lawmakers to consider: ongoing support for the unified CMS (the executive recommendation included ~$2,000,000 but SCAO projects needs of about $11,000,000 in FY27 and roughly $20,000,000 more by FY28 to sustain the system); one additional full-time equivalent staff position for the Office of Dispute Resolution (to be paid from restricted funds); a projected $250,000 to support startup costs for nine newly authorized problem-solving programs; and $100,000 for contracted building security to align hourly rates with regional comparables. Boyd also said SCAO awarded $18,500,000 in grants to problem-solving courts and that less than 1% ($161,485) of prior grant allocations went to program start-up costs.

Committee questions: Representatives asked how the programs and services are distributed geographically and about data access. Representative Brett Martin asked whether self-help centers exist in the Upper Peninsula; Boyd said SCAO partners with the Self Help Center Alliance (affiliated with Michigan Legal Help) and offered to provide a list. Representative Beeson asked whether online forms distinguish U.S. citizens from other users; Boyd said the courts administer procedural rules, not substantive eligibility, and explained that substantive determinations are set by statute and the legislature.

On private-sector involvement and privacy, Boyd said Judicial Information Services and the data platform are public–private partnerships (he named Accenture and BizStream as partners) and that much data is hosted in the Azure government cloud. He said SCAO works to protect personally identifying information and described a consent-based pathway for private background-check access to court records.

No final funding votes: the subcommittee approved the meeting minutes but did not take a decision on the judiciary’s funding requests during this session. Boyd and Van Dyke said they are available to meet with members individually for follow-up.

What’s next: SCAO officials said they would provide requested lists and reports (including court-by-court information about self-help centers and problem-solving courts) and indicated they will continue to brief the committee as budget deliberations proceed.